Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Bullshitometer hitting record highs
Posted: Sun Aug 21 01:59:15 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/20/us.troops.ap/index.html

Motherfucking horseshit, eh comrades?

Here is where the Bush administration should lose support: The rational Americans that voted conservative for fiscal reasons, or for the illusion of conservative economic prosperity, now need to think twice.

Think twice, because this war will be more than five hundred billion fucking dollars. As if Bush wasn't bad enough economically for the US, now he gets to pile on 4 more years of financial burden with an extended wartime.

I'm not even talking about the lives lost over this struggle. I'm not even talking about whether or not lies were made in an attempt to coerce a nation into going to war. These, at this time, are irrelevant.

What I am concerned about is how Bush won't have a legacy so much as a financial freefall pit that the nation will have to pull itself out of. The war will have cost every American citizen, young and old, literally thousands of dollars each.

There is so much potential with a budget the size of the one that America carried at the end of the Clinton administration. With a surplus that huge, social programs could have been advanced to an unprecedented level. Social engineering and the general wellbeing of man could be improved tenfold.

Instead, we have ramshackle security and the illusion of a foreign policy that promotes democracy.

Even if (and it's a big if) one could make a case that the US foreign policy really is good for the rise of democracy as a form of government in third world countries (as opposed to a counterpart extragovernmental organization that helps US oil markets directly profit for a few elites), is there any way whatsoever to make the case that it's worth the price that this war has cost? will cost?

how about half of that?

how about any of that?


 
DanSRose Posted: Sun Aug 21 03:32:12 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  This pisses me off in soooo many ways. Not only do have the "Sorry Troops, but you're stuck long after the 2 tours we said you'd be here" but you also have that private soldiers (mercenaries) are being paid out of federal dollars to guard the Halliburton-controlled oil fields.
Anyone else think that this will be a super-huge campaign focus for the '08 election?


 
FN Posted: Sun Aug 21 06:42:21 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I saw a few interviews with Iraqi's a while ago, and the basic undertone with all of them was the same:

In the arab region, due to cultural/economical/whatever reasons, dicatorship is the default form of governement, it has been like that for as long as anybody can remember, so you can't expect to change it by forcing it unto people, which why the reason "to bring democracy" was bullshit from the day somebody thought of it.

All democracies begin due to an internal revolution, the people who stand up and claim their rights, and it has worked in many equally brutal regimes before, and it would (probably) have solved itself in Iraq over time too. And if it didn't, so be it, if the people really wanted it, they would have taken it themselves, like everybody else has done.

I think the American government overestimated itself more than a little, keeping an army ready or sustaining it in the field are 2 very different cost scales.

The deficit is beyond belief, but then again, what would you expect? With a little "luck", they'll start invading Iran as well. Still not a word about North Korea though, or no fingers pointed at China where North Korean refugees are sent back to a certain death or left to rot in Chinese prisons. Or Saudi-Arabia where human rights are violated on a daily basis. Or all the African countries who could have used this kind of money and energy to build instead of destroy.

And what about America itself? It's not exactly a brand new wonderland either, or am I wrong? Just begin to imagine what this kind of money could have done for America, for the school system, for whatever.

Also, do you think there is ANY other scenario where the public would accept this kind of deficit and incompetence that leads to so much misery and death? But hey, it's us against the world, scared civilians, let us do the job, we know best.

What if it had been a democrat? Some gun nuts would have stormed the white house waving a tattered american flag already.

The only thing the war on Iraq has actually achieved if you ask me is that it has showed to regimes besides Iraq/Afghanistan that in fact America as a military power is weaker than everybody suspected it to be


 
addi Posted: Sun Aug 21 08:16:12 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'll add another happy thought to all this..

We sit here in our nice houses, with full stomachs, sipping our drink and think we had a clue about what's really transpiring in Iraq because we listened to the major network news that evening.
We don't have a clue.

There's a "war" going on over there that doesn't get much coverage. It's a civil war going on between Shiite and Sunni muslims. I listened to some disturbing interviews from civilians the other day. In Bagdad the morgues can't keep enough caskets in stock for the amount of bodies coming in that are murdered because of the hatred between these two groups. One doctor interviewed said that his cousin was coming out of a mosque and was shot. Five family members came to the hospital to donate blood for the wounded man and when they left the hospital each of them was gunned down and killed. When the interviewer asked him if he thought it was going to turn into a civil war between these two groups he said, "No, it already is a civil war, and it's going to get worse."
We've already seen this deep division manifest itself it the writing of the constitution. For months we insisted that it was critical to have it completed by August 15th. Once that date came and went Bush threw C. Rice to the press and she calmly assurred us that it was a "process".

Outside of the mounting deaths of U.S. soldiers daily, and the dangerous effects it's having our on national debt and economy, what becomes evident more and more every day is that this administration was completely ignorant about what they expected would happen once we "liberated" the Iraqi citizens.
They thought they were opening the doors of freedom to these people, and instead they opened pandora's box.

and support for president Bush is at an all time low, both for his handling of domestic problems and regarding the quagmire he got us into over there... and all i can do is shake my head in complete disgust at the millions of americans that voted this moron into office (twice!) and marvel at how easy it is for them to jump from a sinking ship today, and how little intelligence they used in the past two elections.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Aug 21 08:43:05 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Did you guys think this effort was going to be a painless one ?
Would you have us put everything back the way it was and try to go about our daily lives pretending it never happened ?
Does anyone actually believe we could have gone into Iraq and completed the job in two years ? That's lunacy and no one in the administration ever said we'd be out in two years. We will probably maintain military bases in Iraq for the rest of our lives, just like in Korea and Germany and Japan.

You talked about the budget that Clinton left us. Do you not remember the recession that started before he ever left office ?
I keep hearing you guys bitching about the deficit, the deficit !
Will someone please tell me how the deficit has ever directly affected your life ?

More to the point, I keep hearing a lot of bitching about this war, but not one offer of a better idea. Got any ?


 
Silentmind Posted: Sun Aug 21 09:08:38 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The better idea was never to get involved in the first place. However, once you make a mess you have to clean it up. Half a trillion dollars, makes you wonder how much good it would have done in another area, had it not been spent on killing people. I made a few posts a few months ago saying the same thing Chris said about democracy. For democracy to be born and remain, it has to come from internal revolution, its one of the basic ideas of democracy. You just have to look at the first French Revolution, which is the blueprint for all other democratic revolutions.

On another note, the army just stated that it will remain in country for another 4 years at its current strength. So much for "the end of all major hostilities."

Its naive to think that the war was started for the citizens of Iraq, to bring them democracy and freedom. They have none of that, and the country will fall into civil war, I'll bet my life savings on that, once the Americans leave. The Bush admin started by saying Saddam had WMD's, and are a threat to national security. No matter that they couldn't be used against America, or that American intrests or bases would even be targeted. Then the excuse was moved to "we wish to remove an evil dictator." Finally, its moved to bringing the Iraqi people democracy [which will most likely fail, as it was not an internal revolution]. Three justifications for the same war. You know, that just doesn't seem very sound. Certainly not rational.


 
addi Posted: Sun Aug 21 09:38:53 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>I keep hearing you guys bitching about the deficit, the deficit !
>Will someone please tell me how the deficit has ever directly affected your life ?

If you don't believe that there will be consequences for our out of control debt then absolutely nothing I write here would make a hell of a difference.
You know that's like saying, "Will somebody here tell me how 1800 soldiers deaths in Iraq has affected your life?"

Since I haven't had a family member die over there then it's a non-issue for me?

>More to the point, I keep hearing a lot of bitching about this war, but not one offer of a better idea. Got any ?

For me personally, if I had been a vocal proponant of invading Iraq, and then changed my mind I would say you have legitimate reasons to ask me for those "better ideas".
Because I thought the way we went about it was a mistake from day one I feel no compulsion to say anything to you other than "I told you so".
Bush got us into this fucking mess. He's responsible for coming up with practical ways to get us out of it.


 
FN Posted: Sun Aug 21 09:43:11 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Will someone please tell me how the deficit has ever directly affected your life ?

Well, keeping in mind the take off of the oriental economies like China, but also India, it isn't the smartest thing to do to put yourself in a weakened economic position. It might not affect your life right now, but once jobs are getting cancelled it might start affect the life of those around you.

Belgium for example has a quite similar history, with the exception that the (enormous, though it has been toned down a lot since then and is now more or less in order, I'd have to look up the exact percentages, but you get the idea) deficit spiralled out of control due to the oil shortages you probably still vividly remember hif from back in the day where you were still young ;o)

Without getting into the long details of it, which have been explained here before if I'm not mistaking, a little common sense tells you that being in debt is a big nono.

And nobody here says that they expected "the effort" to be painless, most doubted the reasons for the war in the first place and wondered what it would lead up to.




And I agree with silentmind, rational thought seems to have been deleted from some minds. This whole thing has been played out on emotion, first on fear, than on righteousness, and now a fake sense of duty, towards the people who are called camelfuckers by those who claim to be fighting for them. Yeah right.


I don't know about the oil fields being guarded with tax payer's money, but it wouldn't surprise me.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Aug 21 09:44:46 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>The better idea was never to get involved in the first place. However, once you make a mess you have to clean it up. Half a trillion dollars, makes you wonder how much good it would have done in another area, had it not been spent on killing people. I made a few posts a few months ago saying the same thing Chris said about democracy. For democracy to be born and remain, it has to come from internal revolution, its one of the basic ideas of democracy. You just have to look at the first French Revolution, which is the blueprint for all other democratic revolutions.
>
I tend to think of The American Revolution as the blueprint for democratic revolutions.

>On another note, the army just stated that it will remain in country for another 4 years at its current strength. So much for "the end of all major hostilities."
>
Yeah, so what's your point ? Who ever said it would be over quick ?
What exactly is meant by the term "major hostilities" ?

>Its naive to think that the war was started for the citizens of Iraq, to bring them democracy and freedom. They have none of that, and the country will fall into civil war, I'll bet my life savings on that, once the Americans leave.
>
Actually, the enjoy more democracy and freedom now than ever before. What are you talking about ? Maybe you should ask the women of Iraq before you respond.

The Bush admin started by saying Saddam had WMD's, and are a threat to national security. No matter that they couldn't be used against America, or that American intrests or bases would even be targeted. Then the excuse was moved to "we wish to remove an evil dictator." Finally, its moved to bringing the Iraqi people democracy [which will most likely fail, as it was not an internal revolution]. Three justifications for the same war. You know, that just doesn't seem very sound. Certainly not rational.
>
You obviously have no idea why we went to Iraq, your reasons stated are nothing more than spoonfed left wing tripe repeated like a parrot.
First you say Bush said Iraq had WMD's as the major reason for the invasion. That never happened. Also you ommited the fact that not only Bush, but the entire world said he had them, even France and Germany were in agreement with this. Enough of that debate, I posted this once before but you probably weren't here then or dismissed it because it was one of my posts. I will post it again as to why we went to Iraq.

C:Documents and SettingskeithMy DocumentsWhy We Are In Iraq by David Horowitz.htm


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Aug 21 09:46:22 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sorry, try this link:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16103


 
FN Posted: Sun Aug 21 09:50:22 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Yeah, so what's your point ? Who ever said it would be over quick ?
>What exactly is meant by the term "major hostilities" ?

You just hit the nail on the head hif. Whenever officials talk about this they try to be as vague as possible, so they "never said anything" and can bend it whichever way they like and still claim they haven't lied or told half truths.

>Actually, the enjoy more democracy and freedom now than ever before. What are you talking about ? Maybe you should ask the women of Iraq before you respond.

Want to ask those of saudi Arabia at the same time too, hif?


 
FN Posted: Sun Aug 21 09:52:04 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Sorry, try this link:
>
>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16103

haven't read it yet, just clicked on the link, but I love how it opens with a busty airheaded blonde holding an ak47.


 
Silentmind Posted: Sun Aug 21 10:27:39 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>I tend to think of The American Revolution as the blueprint for democratic revolutions.
>


...Yes, the American revolution came first, however the French revolution is the true blueprint. Seeing as the American revolution was based around driving out a foreign government, and the french revolution was about internal revolution.

>>What exactly is meant by the term "major hostilities" ?

I don't know, ask Bush, he's the one that said they were over.


>>
>You obviously have no idea why we went to Iraq, your reasons stated are nothing more than spoonfed left wing tripe repeated like a parrot.

Sorry, but thats what your president said. I'm just repeating what his first, second, and third justifications are for the war.
>First you say Bush said Iraq had WMD's as the major reason for the invasion. That never happened.

“For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”

Bush sure does make really great quotes, doesn't he.


 
beetlebum Posted: Sun Aug 21 14:53:36 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>I'll add another happy thought to all this..
>
>We sit here in our nice houses, with full stomachs, sipping our drink and think we had a clue about what's really transpiring in Iraq because we listened to the major network news that evening.
>We don't have a clue.
>
>There's a "war" going on over there that doesn't get much coverage. It's a civil war going on between Shiite and Sunni muslims. I listened to some disturbing interviews from civilians the other day. In Bagdad the morgues can't keep enough caskets in stock for the amount of bodies coming in that are murdered because of the hatred between these two groups. One doctor interviewed said that his cousin was coming out of a mosque and was shot. Five family members came to the hospital to donate blood for the wounded man and when they left the hospital each of them was gunned down and killed. When the interviewer asked him if he thought it was going to turn into a civil war between these two groups he said, "No, it already is a civil war, and it's going to get worse."
>We've already seen this deep division manifest itself it the writing of the constitution. For months we insisted that it was critical to have it completed by August 15th. Once that date came and went Bush threw C. Rice to the press and she calmly assurred us that it was a "process".

I don't think we can really blame America for the civil war, nor can we blame Bush that a Constitution hasn't been achieved. The civil war was never realized through violence before because Saddam Hussein ruled with an iron fist and murdered anyone that created any anti-regime disturbance. It is unfortunate that the United States hasn't been able to suppress the war, but like any civil war, people have to grow tired of it before peace is realized following a truce on both sides, a la the IRA. The US could easily suppress the war by starting a campaign of terror, but the US military is unwilling to do it, at least not to the degree that would be required. I'm okay with that. I'm sorry that both sides are fighting, but you have to ask why they are... and the answer to that is that the hostility has always been there, but it has never been able to manifest itself in violent action like it is able to now. To me, this civil war indicates that there are only two ways in which Iraq should be ruled: a true democracy, where both sides have their say, or despotism. Democracy, unfortunately, takes time and faith.

>
>Outside of the mounting deaths of U.S. soldiers daily, and the dangerous effects it's having our on national debt and economy, what becomes evident more and more every day is that this administration was completely ignorant about what they expected would happen once we "liberated" the Iraqi citizens.
>They thought they were opening the doors of freedom to these people, and instead they opened pandora's box.

I agree, the Administration underestimated the costs of the war in Iraq, and it saddens me that this is the case. However, it is also difficult to know what hostilities lie below the surface of a country when it has been suppressed for so long or how they will play out down the line. Just because we are heading into the unknown at any certain point does not mean that intervention should be avoided. Many administrations have made huge mistakes in terms of cost-- but some are more easily swept under the rug. Democrats endorsed Vietnam just like Republicans, and the UN costs the US more than anyone could've ever predicted, and the UN is absolutely worthless. People just don't like to see it that way because it supposedly promotes peace. (Bullshit! It's simply another corrupt bureaucracy.)
>
>and support for president Bush is at an all time low, both for his handling of domestic problems and regarding the quagmire he got us into over there... and all i can do is shake my head in complete disgust at the millions of americans that voted this moron into office (twice!) and marvel at how easy it is for them to jump from a sinking ship today, and how little intelligence they used in the past two elections.

I agree, Bush is a real moron. But! Many Republicans were saying this about Clinton and unlike Bush, Clinton was nearly impeached (whether that was overreacting or not is your opinion. Grin). And yet most Democrats still call the Clinton presidency the Glory Days, when Clinton was as two-faced as the rest on many issues, such as global warming or aid to Africa. Of course he signed the Kyoto Protocol- he knew it wouldn't pass in Congress! I think that, quite simply, Clinton was in many ways a much better politician than Bush, and thus, got away with a lot more. Granted, he did balance the budget... and that was truly brilliant. However, I don't even know if a Democrat in office following Clinton could've sustained that, especially with the SS crisis we have on our hands now. I guess we'll never know.

All I'm saying is that I hate that the debate regarding the Iraq war has to become a Republican v. Democrat debate... and that neither side understands nor thinks about the arguments the other side is making.

Truthfully, I think the Iraq war was a stupid move, and would've been had any administration pursued it. But now that we are in Iraq, most people seem either angry or 100% supportive, and there needs to be something in between. It's too bad that the Administration told lies to the America public- Hif, you can't deny that the Administration did lie, that Colin Powell did lie to the UN (even though he may not have realized it because even he was kept in the dark by military intelligence under Wolfowitz's close watch), etc. But just the same, the problems in Iraq were always there... why does everyone want to blame America?! Just because the liberation has unleashed hell doesn't mean that the quiet suffering and anger wasn't there before-- it was simply hidden or never realized. It will take time for people to believe in democracy, especially if they have never experienced it or been allowed to dream of it. In their day to day lives, I'm sure Hussein was preferred in many ways, because the systematic killings were hidden and people could deny them. Now they're in everyones' faces... and that sort of brutal reality is much more difficult to handle than "disappearances."

I truly wish that American had never gotten involved in Iraq, but I think that people underestimate Iraq's future. America survived a civil war... the war where America lost the most casualities (and logically so). I think that Iraq will, too, even if this probably was not the best way for liberation to happen.

PS: Addi, simply because I responded to your arguments doesn't mean I agree with Hif! (Although I adore both of you.)




 
beetlebum Posted: Sun Aug 21 14:57:10 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Did you guys think this effort was going to be a painless one ?
>Would you have us put everything back the way it was and try to go about our daily lives pretending it never happened ?
>Does anyone actually believe we could have gone into Iraq and completed the job in two years ? That's lunacy and no one in the administration ever said we'd be out in two years. We will probably maintain military bases in Iraq for the rest of our lives, just like in Korea and Germany and Japan.
>
>You talked about the budget that Clinton left us. Do you not remember the recession that started before he ever left office ?
>I keep hearing you guys bitching about the deficit, the deficit !
>Will someone please tell me how the deficit has ever directly affected your life ?
>
That's an ignorant question, Hif! It will eventually affect everyone, but especially the first time home buyers and the new business owners... as interest rates rise to combat inflation that necessarily comes with a growing deficit. Eventually, if the deficit continues and the dollar continues to lose value in the international market, banks will start to switch reserves to the Euro or even the Yuan. Baaaaaad for America, Hif. Very bad. Why? Because there is no gold standard any more, which means the only thing that props the dollar now is confidence in the currency... once China and Japan stop floating the dollar by greedily sucking it out of the international market, the dollar will spiral, inflation will go cuh-razy, and we'll have a 1970s nightmare but much more serious.

And I'll tell you one thing, the shitty deficit does affect my life because I live abroad, pay my tuition in dollars, and get the worst exchange rate EVER!


 
beetlebum Posted: Sun Aug 21 16:42:10 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  beetlebum said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Did you guys think this effort was going to be a painless one ?
>>Would you have us put everything back the way it was and try to go about our daily lives pretending it never happened ?
>>Does anyone actually believe we could have gone into Iraq and completed the job in two years ? That's lunacy and no one in the administration ever said we'd be out in two years. We will probably maintain military bases in Iraq for the rest of our lives, just like in Korea and Germany and Japan.
>>
>>You talked about the budget that Clinton left us. Do you not remember the recession that started before he ever left office ?
>>I keep hearing you guys bitching about the deficit, the deficit !
>>Will someone please tell me how the deficit has ever directly affected your life ?
>>
>That's an ignorant question, Hif! It will eventually affect everyone, but especially the first time home buyers and the new business owners... as interest rates rise to combat inflation that necessarily comes with a growing deficit. Eventually, if the deficit continues and the dollar continues to lose value in the international market, banks will start to switch reserves to the Euro or even the Yuan. Baaaaaad for America, Hif. Very bad. Why? Because there is no gold standard any more, which means the only thing that props the dollar now is confidence in the currency... once China and Japan stop floating the dollar by greedily sucking it out of the international market, the dollar will spiral, inflation will go cuh-razy, and we'll have a 1970s nightmare but much more serious.
>
>And I'll tell you one thing, the shitty deficit does affect my life because I live abroad, pay my tuition in dollars, and get the worst exchange rate EVER!

Hmmm. Sometimes I go back and read my posts because I'm a loser like that, and I realize that they sound really cocky. Which is not how I want to seem at all, and in real life in non-internet ramblings, I try to be pretty reasonable. So I just wanted to apologise if I came off that way. Meeble.


 
Posted: Sun Aug 21 17:40:19 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  boy, could I ever use half a trillion dollars righta bout now.

Seriously; it would be better invested as red plastic clown noses.

trillions and trillions of red plastic clown noses. The kind that squeek.

We could cover all of Montana with them.

Those trillions of clown noses would be a better investment than paying to have international security and foreign relations shot to shit.

We've ripped ourselves off.


 
FN Posted: Sun Aug 21 18:07:52 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Crim, why don't you make a site like the one that calculates the number of teachers that could be hired and stuff with the money spent on the war in Iraq, but have it calculate the number of squeeky red clwon noses one would have been able to buy

and then add graphs showing the % of the american public could have been givan a clown nose, or the % of the total world population.


I'm pretty sure if you play your cards right with that one you could score pretty hard


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Aug 21 21:03:04 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  It's too bad that the Administration told lies to the America public- Hif, you can't deny that the Administration did lie, that Colin Powell did lie to the UN (even though he may not have realized it because even he was kept in the dark by military intelligence under Wolfowitz's close watch), etc.
>
I can and have argued that they didn't lie. Can you name any major country on the planet that did not believe Saddam had WMD's ?
Can you tell me what happened to the WMD's that were documented before he threw the inspectors out ?


 
addi Posted: Sun Aug 21 21:43:31 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  beetlebum said:

>I don't think we can really blame America for the civil war, nor can we blame Bush that a Constitution hasn't been achieved. The civil war was never realized through violence before because Saddam Hussein ruled with an iron fist and murdered anyone that created any anti-regime disturbance.

I don't blame Bush for the longstanding distrust between these two factions. I blame him for his ineptness in understanding beforehand what would transpire once he got rid of the "iron fist" keeping them in check. When you invade a country with such varied ethnic and religious groups the responsible and intelligent thing to have in place BEFORE you act is to have a clear understanding of the consequences that will result from your actions, and to have a reasoned well thought out plan, based on sound intelligence, on how best to deal with it. This administation was clueless about the reality of their actions, and that unfortunate fact is playing itself out every day in Iraq.
I use the same argument in Bush's handling of Iraq adopting a constitution. And a piece of legal paper isn't going to suddenly solve the hatred between these two groups...I know that. I just hate the way he threw out an arbitrary date, stated time after time that it was imperative and critical that they met this date, and then when it didn't happen had his mouthpieces tell us it was just a "process" and everythings fine. It's a pattern I've seen too many times from this White House regarding the problems in Iraq. An inability to be straightforward, without using a massive amount of spin. It insults our intelligence as citizens (then again..maybe he knows he can get away with it).

I happen to agree with a statemant a former CIA intelligence agent specializing in Osama said on 60 minutes tonight...that Bush's invasion of Iraq (not Afghanistan) was the best unexpected christmas present he could have given Osama. With a U.S. miltary presence in Saudi Arabia, Israel, and now Iraq it ended up solidifying a relatively small rag tag group of extremists into a massive unified group, that now had a "justification" in their eyes to view us as aggressors and as a muslim hating country...military presence in 3 of their most holy places.

I think diplomatically Bush made a major mistake in how he handled the post 9/11 situation. I will not be surprised at all if sooner or later Americans suffer from another more deadly attack because of his bumbled foreign policy misjudgements...and that's really a depressing thought.



>the UN costs the US more than anyone could've ever predicted, and the UN is absolutely worthless. People just don't like to see it that way because it supposedly promotes peace. (Bullshit! It's simply another corrupt bureaucracy.)

Bureaucratic waste of space, or a worthwhile institution, no matter your view of the U.N. it's important that we still try and work with the organization. We have a long history of cooperating with corrupt governments, because it was in our best interest to do so. It is in our best interest to legitimize the value of the U.N. right now. To dismiss them as a worthless group (even if they are) would be a poor political move on our part. Right or wrong, Bolton's nomination only emphasizes to the rest of the world the pervailing perception that we don't give a damn about anyone but ourselves.

>PS: Addi, simply because I responded to your arguments doesn't mean I agree with Hif!

: )
I enjoy your well thought out arguements. It makes me question the legitimacy of my beliefs and that's a good thing.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Aug 21 22:04:40 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Bureaucratic waste of space, or a worthwhile institution, no matter your view of the U.N. it's important that we still try and work with the organization. We have a long history of cooperating with corrupt governments, because it was in our best interest to do so. It is in our best interest to legitimize the value of the U.N. right now. To dismiss them as a worthless group (even if they are) would be a poor political move on our part. Right or wrong, Bolton's nomination only emphasizes to the rest of the world the pervailing perception that we don't give a damn about anyone but ourselves.
>
Not gonna buy any of that bullshit.
The UN is more corrupt than any single country on the planet and if Bolton's presence there bothers any of them, then that's too bad. You can say a lot of things about Mr. Bolton, but he won't take any shit from anybody, and that's what is needed there now. If you think business as usual is ok then you can help out with the oil for food scandal.


 
Mesh Posted: Sun Aug 21 22:08:36 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  You better not badmouth the UN hif, men in Blue Helmets will be knocking down your door in the middle of the night and you'll never be seen again.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Aug 21 22:17:58 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Yeah, so what's your point ? Who ever said it would be over quick ?
>>What exactly is meant by the term "major hostilities" ?
>
>You just hit the nail on the head hif. Whenever officials talk about this they try to be as vague as possible, so they "never said anything" and can bend it whichever way they like and still claim they haven't lied or told half truths.
>
The "end of major hostilities" is a military term and a very accurate on in the way it was used. It meant that we were no longer at war with Iraq. Can you disupute that?

>>Actually, the enjoy more democracy and freedom now than ever before. What are you talking about ? Maybe you should ask the women of Iraq before you respond.
>
>Want to ask those of saudi Arabia at the same time too, hif?
>
You keep bringing up the question why we are not in Iran or N. Korea or Saudi Arabia? What's up with that ? Would you have us invade them all at once ?
You summarily dismiss any good that may have been accomplished by saying that bad still exists elsewhere.


 
addi Posted: Sun Aug 21 22:29:21 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Not gonna buy any of that bullshit.

I expected nothing less from you, hif

*was that too vile?



 
Silentmind Posted: Sun Aug 21 22:45:38 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>>
>The "end of major hostilities" is a military term and a very accurate on in the way it was used. It meant that we were no longer at war with Iraq. Can you disupute that?


Yes. I can and I will. You still are at war with Iraq. This is shown simply from the fact that you still have combatant prisoners. They must be released upon the cessation of the war, unless they are charged for a breach of international law. The reason why the declaration of war was never withdrawn {and why you are still at war with Iraq} is so that you can still detain without charge "the enemy" and hold other previously captured prisoners. Without the war, you can't hold then without charge. Little way to dance around international law and the American public. You still remain at war, yet you have a great little soundbyte saying "All major hostilities have ended." In fact, the US has remained at war with Iraq.


 
Zacq Posted: Sun Aug 21 23:23:27 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I hadn't been paying attention to this thread but I just read it through and my mind keeps coming back to this post.

ifihadahif said:
>Did you guys think this effort was going to be a painless one ?
>Would you have us put everything back the way it was and try to go about our daily lives pretending it never happened ?
>Does anyone actually believe we could have gone into Iraq and completed the job in two years ? That's lunacy and no one in the administration ever said we'd be out in two years. We will probably maintain military bases in Iraq for the rest of our lives, just like in Korea and Germany and Japan.
>
>You talked about the budget that Clinton left us. Do you not remember the recession that started before he ever left office ?
>I keep hearing you guys bitching about the deficit, the deficit !
>Will someone please tell me how the deficit has ever directly affected your life ?
>
>More to the point, I keep hearing a lot of bitching about this war, but not one offer of a better idea. Got any ?

And I keep thinking, everyone one of the posts before this one was about how we shouldn't have been in the war, and hif, you countered as if they'd said 'Bush is screwing up the war.' Cuz I'm pretty sure everyone else's point was that we shouldn't have been in the war at all, to repeat what I said, and so saying 'Did you guys think this effort was going to be a painless one ?' doesn't make sense. They did. That's partly why they opposed the war.

And then when this nonsensicallityness was sort of pointed out, you didn't address that part of the thread again. Like when you asked has the deficit affect any of us, and Beetlebum gave a good description why, and you didn't (nor I assume will you) respond to that.

Or when thoughts for 'a better idea' are presented and you make no further mention of that comment.

If you thought the Horowitz vs. Swanson debate was a little messy from the other thread, it was because they make points, are refuted in some way (not necessarily true, but refuted) and often make no further reference to them. Each side is left with claims and evidence that was never addressed by the other side because each side could target the language they chose.

I didn't mean to pick on you hif, but, well, I did, because you're the one I most frequently debate with and who I try desperately to get to address earlier comments which you seem to have forgotten despite the fact they're a short scroll away.


 
Posted: Mon Aug 22 00:08:56 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.matthewgood.org/PHOTOS/trillion.jpg

i underestimated about my half a trillion figure, it seems.

it's well over a trillion.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Aug 22 06:50:34 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>>And I keep thinking, everyone one of the posts before this one was about how we shouldn't have been in the war, and hif, you countered as if they'd said 'Bush is screwing up the war.' Cuz I'm pretty sure everyone else's point was that we shouldn't have been in the war at all, to repeat what I said, and so saying 'Did you guys think this effort was going to be a painless one ?' doesn't make sense. They did. That's partly why they opposed the war.
>
>If you thought the Horowitz vs. Swanson debate was a little messy from the other thread, it was because they make points, are refuted in some way (not necessarily true, but refuted) and often make no further reference to them. Each side is left with claims and evidence that was never addressed by the other side because each side could target the language they chose.
>
Actually I thought Mr. Horowitz soundly thumped the other guy. Not messy at all.
As for your other comments, I firmly believe we should be in this war no matter what the cost. I also think to shrink away from it because that means we can't have the boat at the lake for the summer is just a little petty don't you think?
I don't address every issue or rebuttal because I simply don't have the time or the inclination. I am the lone conservative voice here and to rebutt or comment on every issue or rebuttal is just not possible or even disireable.
I make my point and move on.
From time to time I will latch on to something and argue it ad nauseum and that get us nowhere so I choose to be choosy nowadays about the things I latch on to.


 
addi Posted: Mon Aug 22 07:03:19 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:

>Yes. I can and I will. You still are at war with Iraq.

I think hif has you on this one, Silentmind. Recently this administration decided that they would stop using the phrase "War on terror", cuz it just sounds so...so...warlike. They've replaced it with the "struggle against extremists".
I think we can all relax it bit more now that it's been downgraded from a war to just a struggle. Soldiers get killed in wars, but in struggles it's more like they're just having pillow fights with the insurgents.
: )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Aug 22 08:02:05 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  No, we are not at war with Iraq.
Please explain to me how you figure this one.
The Iraqis are fighting alongside our soldiers against the insurgents.
The large majority of insurgents are not Iraqis.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Aug 22 08:05:17 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  >...Yes, the American revolution came first, however the French revolution is the true blueprint. Seeing as the American revolution was based around driving out a foreign government, and the french revolution was about internal revolution.
>
What foreign government were the British colonies driving out ?
I'm a little vague on that one.


 
addi Posted: Mon Aug 22 08:28:51 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>No, we are not at war with Iraq.

Nice use of semantics. I do have to tip my hat to all the conservatives out there and their god given ability to play word games.

We are at war IN Iraq. Fighting Iraqis, Syrians, Jordanians, Saudi's, and others from various Arab nations.

Hows that? More digestible?
No?

Okay...we are engaged in a struggle against extremism in Iraq...with 140,000 of our soldiers, of which over 1,700 of them have come out on the losing end of the struggle.


 
Mesh Posted: Mon Aug 22 08:38:21 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Quit all this bickering and think about something.

Atoms. Molecules. Matter. Matter that is aware of itself. Think about it. I mean REALLY think about it. Matter aware of its existance? Matter aware that it is thinking about matter that is aware of its existance?

Whoa.



Or just watch Rubber Johnny

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/flash/rubberjohnny.html


 
addi Posted: Mon Aug 22 08:39:57 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>What foreign government were the British colonies driving out ?
>I'm a little vague on that one.

I'll clarify. In the 1600's we were British colonies. By the 1750's we were essentially American colonies governed by British King George III and Parliment.

The seat of power was in London, England, not Boston, MA.
For all intents and purposes Americans had evovled into a separate cultural entity by the mid 18th century. Britain was a foreign government emposing rule over the colonies from across the ocean.


 
Zacq Posted: Mon Aug 22 11:17:08 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>I also think to shrink away from it because that means we can't have the boat at the lake for the summer is just a little petty don't you think?

Sometimes you sound like a conservative trying to defend his side. Sometimes you sound like an asshole.

I'm hoping you didn't mean it that way, but you really sound like you're saying 'so what if the deficit causes some financial problems for people, you don't have it that rough' except in a jerkier way.

I live in Connecticut, which is, I believe, the wealthiest state in the country. It also has three of the ten poorest cities in the entire country. I know people with the shittiest of the shitty schooling and close to the most horrible lives you could have while still in the U.S.

Makes me think of people who say 'What do you care about jobs moving overseas, no one really loses jobs because of it. Have you ever lost your job?' Which seems reasonable until you go to cities that are basically ghost towns filled with old unused industrial centers and rundown houses, with old people who will shoot you with a shotgun if you joke about globalization.

And moreover, trickle-down economics - capitalism wants me to have that boat (and no, I do not own a boat).


 
Zacq Posted: Mon Aug 22 11:18:31 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And sorry, my main point was supposed to be that my original post showed how carelessly you made your first post and how it didn't in any way actually counter what everyone else had said, yet you managed to change their arguments to suit what you wanted to argue about.

Beef.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Aug 22 12:30:25 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>I also think to shrink away from it because that means we can't have the boat at the lake for the summer is just a little petty don't you think?
>
>Sometimes you sound like a conservative trying to defend his side. Sometimes you sound like an asshole.
>
>I'm hoping you didn't mean it that way, but you really sound like you're saying 'so what if the deficit causes some financial problems for people, you don't have it that rough' except in a jerkier way.
>
>I live in Connecticut, which is, I believe, the wealthiest state in the country. It also has three of the ten poorest cities in the entire country. I know people with the shittiest of the shitty schooling and close to the most horrible lives you could have while still in the U.S.
>
OK, tell me how those poor people were doing before we ran the deficit up ?
Did the deficit cause their poverty ?


>And moreover, trickle-down economics - capitalism wants me to have that boat (and no, I do not own a boat).
>
Capitalism also wants you to be safe from terrorism before you get that boat.


 
Zacq Posted: Mon Aug 22 12:32:21 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>OK, tell me how those poor people were doing before we ran the deficit up ?
>Did the deficit cause their poverty ?

If you're saying a deficit is going to financially prevent me from getting a boat, that also means it will have an affect on people who are already struggling to survive, which means saying 'but it won't affect you' is meaningless.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Aug 22 12:38:40 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>OK, tell me how those poor people were doing before we ran the deficit up ?
>>Did the deficit cause their poverty ?
>
>If you're saying a deficit is going to financially prevent me from getting a boat, that also means it will have an affect on people who are already struggling to survive, which means saying 'but it won't affect you' is meaningless.
>
You could not possibly any more anal could you ?
I NEVER said anything about a deficit financially preventing you from getting a boat. And before you try to say I implied it, you better re-read the post very thoroughly.


 
Zacq Posted: Mon Aug 22 13:19:22 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I didn't really think you meant that, but the point is that if you didn't, then it meant absolutely nothing. I really love how when I try to show that what you said doesn't mean anything, you tell me to tell you what it means.

And yes I could be more anal. In fact, I'm going to start arguing on your side of this issue so you don't have to be the lone conservative anymore, which should free you up a little time to doublecheck things before you post them.


 
Zacq Posted: Mon Aug 22 13:25:16 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>No, we are not at war with Iraq.

>We are at war IN Iraq. Fighting Iraqis, Syrians, Jordanians, Saudi's, and others from various Arab nations.

How can liberals on one hand say we shouldn't war with Iraq instead of other Arab nations with proven ties to terrorism and nuclear means and on the other hand say that in Iraq we are fighting those other nations? If our current presence in Iraq allows us to combat those regimes with help from a growing ally in the Middle East, aren't we really getting at many of them at once? Is the ability to consume the focus of many branches of extremists simultaneously and protect our and other's nations as best we can not worth the sacrifice?


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Aug 22 13:27:34 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>I didn't really think you meant that, but the point is that if you didn't, then it meant absolutely nothing. I really love how when I try to show that what you said doesn't mean anything, you tell me to tell you what it means.
>
>And yes I could be more anal. In fact, I'm going to start arguing on your side of this issue so you don't have to be the lone conservative anymore, which should free you up a little time to doublecheck things before you post them.
>
The point is . . . is that you are too anal and too caught up in trying to me wrong on every little insignifant utterance the the point that you lose focus of what the argument was about in the first place.
Arguing with you is like jacking off minus the pleasure.


 
Zacq Posted: Mon Aug 22 13:37:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>The point is . . . is that you are too anal and too caught up in trying to me wrong on every little insignifant utterance the the point that you lose focus of what the argument was about in the first place.

And my point is that if you fill your argument with little meaningless utterances that shouldn't have been said, it gives you the ability to change the argument around and defend whichever points you feel you can most easily. I personally try to stick to a point in my posts and say only things I have a clear reason for saying, and if you want to ask me why I said something I'll let you know or say I'm wrong - if a debate doesn't work like that, it doesn't work. Period.

But anyway, I've switched sides now.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]